Proof of the testator’s signature alone cannot establish a Will under Section 69 of the Evidence Act.

The petitioner sought Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of an immovable property belonging to late P.S. Lakshmanan, who executed a registered Will dated 28 June 2007 and died on 24 July 2010.

The petitioner claimed to be the son of the testator’s wife’s brother and the sole beneficiary under the Will. The testator’s wife had predeceased him, and the petitioner asserted that no other interested persons remained.

The Will named the petitioner’s father, S. Padmanabhan, as executor; however, the executor died on 21 February 2018 without obtaining probate.

General citation was published, and no objections were received.

The petitioner examined himself and produced the original Will, death certificates, and the affidavit of assets.

Both attesting witnesses had died. With permission of the Court, G. Raghavendran was examined as P.W.2, but he identified only the testator’s signature and did not identify the handwriting or signatures of either attesting witness.

Despite being granted a further opportunity to cure this deficiency, the petitioner did not do so.

1. Whether the petitioner had proved the execution and attestation of the Will in the manner required when both attesting witnesses were deceased?

2. Whether the petitioner had established that he was the sole beneficiary or person entitled to seek administration after the alleged deaths of the other Class II heirs?

3. Whether Letters of Administration with the Will annexed could be granted in the absence of satisfactory proof of the Will?

The Court applied Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which requires proof of the handwriting of at least one attesting witness, along with proof of the testator’s signature, where no attesting witness is available.

Proof of the testator’s signature alone does not establish the statutory requirement of attestation.

The Court also referred to Sections 8 and 9 read with the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under which the Class II heirs of a male Hindu must be identified according to the statutory order of succession.

Registration of a Will does not dispense with the requirement of proving its attestation.

Although P.W.2 identified the signature of the testator, he did not identify or prove the handwriting or signature of either attesting witness.

Since both attesting witnesses were deceased, the petitioner was required to satisfy Section 69 by proving the handwriting of at least one attesting witness.

The Court had expressly notified the petitioner of this defect and granted an opportunity for compliance, but no further evidence was produced.

Consequently, the registered status of the Will could not cure the failure to prove its attestation.

The Court also found that the petitioner had not provided a complete genealogy or particulars of the testator’s parents, siblings, or their descendants, and therefore had not established the alleged extinction of other Class II heirs.

However, because the Will itself remained unproved, the Court considered it unnecessary to give a final determination on the question of the petitioner’s status or caveatable interest.

Identification of the testator’s signature alone was insufficient, particularly when the handwriting or signatures of the attesting witnesses had not been proved.

Accordingly, Letters of Administration with the Will annexed were refused, and O.P. No. 377 of 2025 was dismissed without costs.